The Promotion of World Peace through Inter-Faith Dialogue & the Unity of Faiths – Interview with Mark DONFRIED

Mark Donfried is the founding Director of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

Monica MUŢU: What are the geopolitical implications of religion today?

Mark Donfried: For, I think, all of history religion in many ways has served a very divisive role. If you look in the past, wars have been fought of religion and wars have been escalated by religion and even as recently as the recent American administration under George Bush actually used a lot of this terminology in the sense that it was a crusade, the axes of good, the axes of evil. Those are just a few reminders of some of the dangers and the way that religion is perceived in the media and the role the religion has played in geopolitics. The whole point of this conference, however, was actually to look at the opposite, as we believe that religion and faith can actually have a very positive role. We believe there are many more moderates in the world than extremists and yet the problem is usually the extremists get all the media. When you think of Islam, you don’t think of the Koran, you don’t think of the Hajj, the Islamic pilgrimage or the many very positive and beautiful things of Islam, you think of terrorism and unfortunately very often is the case with Judaism and Christianity. So therefore the point of this conference was to try to look what are the positives, the potentials of religion and of faith, of us opening to create a dialogue to improve the geopolitical situation instead of actually wanting to destroy it […] and we believe there’s a great potential and that’s what we’re trying in these events […] to have an international, as well as an interdisciplinary, and of course an inter-faith discussion about these issues. So therefore we’re trying to see how we can actually flip the course of history at least as it’s been perceived in the media regarding religion and geopolitics.

M.M.: Can we speak of a geopolitics of religion?

Mark Donfried: So can we speak of the geopolitics of religion? I think definitely we can. On the one hand we could refer, for example, to Samuel Huntington – the famous book Clash of Civilizations. In that book, in the first twenty pages he has a number of maps where he tries to show the world as is classified, according to him, regarding religion. He talks about the civilization of the Tsars, civilization of the West
and that would be one way of categorizing when we say the geopolitics of religion. I however feel that’s a very imperfect model in that. Islam is a religion, this is just one example, that’s very complex and there are many different interpretations of the Koran, some linked to politics, some are not, some are extremist, some are not. So I think that the idea of mapping the world in terms of religion can serve more of a disservice than a serviceas it tends to force people to generalize in a way that sometimes brings us further from the truth than closer to it. On the other hand, of course if you look at geopolitics, religion has a big role in terms of the cultural dimensions for the policies and cultural dimensions of relations between individuals. (…) We put together this Conference as more of a bridge of how we can actually bring people together. In essence, again, if you look at the basics, faith, and this is true, whether you’re talking about Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity, they have much more in common than they have apart and I think it’s much easier for people of faith to speak to each other, rather than people who have faith and who don’t have faith. I think there is a solidarity there, there is a potential that we try to gather people of different faiths together.

M.M.: In what way do religious conflicts affect national security? Can you provide a concrete example?

Mark Donfried: In many ways, I think. There, in some cases, of course you have governments that will actually hijack religion and use it as a way of manipulating their individuals, their people, their citizens. Just to take an example from my own country, the USA; very often that was the case under the previous administration where I think religion was used as a way of manipulating individuals to think “ah! we have to do this because we are the truth, we are the axes of good”. And of course, there are extremes, if one looks at Iran, if one looks at other cases, where I think religion can be used. I think that is a very dangerous thing that can affect the national security of the country itself and of course international relations. That’s the reality and in many cases there are actually negative uses of manipulations of religion but of course there are very positive as well. So these are just two examples in terms of the negatives. In terms of the positives, there you can look maybe at the new Pope, Pope Francisc, where I think maybe you see with him really reluctance, where you see with him really humility that I think it does much easier in term of to have inter-faith dialogue. One of the essential things to have in inter-religious or inter-faith dialogue is mutual respect and mostly humility. As soon we are able to realize our own imperfection is much easier to have a discussion with someone from another faith. And I think there I’m very optimistic regarding the Catholic Church today and the new Pope. I think that’s the direction it’s looking at within again, as opposed to not so long ago when there was actually very much of a triumphalism in the Catholic Church and almost an arrogance which led to the many problems: of the sex scandals, the corruption, etc. So I think that humility is very, very important. There is maybe a chance now with Pope Francis to see more of the positive sense of religions coming closer.

M.M.: Are religious extremism and terrorism correlated? If so, in what geographical areas is this relation present?

Mark Donfried: So, this again, I kind of already answered this question. I think religion is a very effective way of manipulating people. In that case, if you look at Bin Laden, Bin Laden you could say was an expert of soft power in the sense that he didn’t pay anyone to fly into the World Trade Center on September 11th, he didn’t force them to fly off into the World Trade Center, he attracted them to his interpretation of the Koran core religion. And that was in my opinion the way that Bin Laden misused Islam and his very strange definition of Islam to try to motivate individuals to do things and even take their own life. So that would be one example, where of course there is a direct link. But there are many other countries that are Muslim in the Islam [world] having many more positive examples than negative, but that’s one example that was in the media (…). So yes, I think unfortunately extremism and terrorism are in this case very correlated and it really does escalate many of the issues. Israel – Palestine for example is one; you can look at even genocides such as Rwanda; in it again we see this idea where they divided an entire people based on their faith, ethnicity or various other criteria. So, yes, I would say they are related.

M.M.: Is there a religious dimension to the Arab Spring? If so, what determined it? If not, how can a future evolution in this direction be avoided?

Mark Donfried: Yes and no. I think if one looks at Tunisia and Egypt, I think in essence, it wasn’t really about religion. I think, in essence, this was about dignity, this was about respect, and this was about also jobs. We have for example in Tunisia highly educated population and they really felt, you know, blocked by the government in the sense you have the corruption, etc and many issues. And I think that was really the first and ,you know, we talked to many people at Tahir square, etc, they said the first thing is dignity. They wanted to have dignity and respect. So, therefore, I would say, in essence, initially, I don’t think the Arab Spring was about religion; but then of course the power was, nobody was prepared for what would come, everyone was so focused on the Revolution itself and they weren’t focused on what would happen next. And I think that’s one of the issues regarding it. So, I would say, now, of course, it is very much about religion and we have actually a big issue regarding the Muslim Brotherhood etcetera and again we are seeing these tendencies how religion can be a great way to manipulate and influence. So, I don’t think it was true at the origins, but I do think it’s true now to a certain degree. And how can it be avoided in the future? I think the key thing where cultural diplomacy can contribute is to make it more difficult for extremists. It’s much easier for me to convince you of my propaganda if you don’t have experience with what I’m talking to you about. If I tell you: “All these people are like this; these people are like that. „okay. And if I tell you you’re a good person, that sounds very good; that’s nice to receive. But if you know individuals that I’m trying to generalize about, if you have experience in individuals that I’m trying to generalize about, that’s much more harder for me to do propaganda with you. That’s why I think cultural diplomacy can help making it more difficult for the extremists. Bring people together and the world will come together; forge exchanges, build trust, build understanding; and that, for the next time an extremist comes, whether it’s Bin Laden, or whether it’s George Bush, it will be much more difficult for them to manipulate you. Because you know individuals on that side, you have experienced it. So that’s why I see a huge opportunity for cultural diplomacy to have an effect.

M.M.: What strategies should be generated by the Institute of Cultural Diplomacy and your country or the alliances that your country is a member of, to achieve world stability, in regards to the current developments in Eastern Europe? Reference to your country

Mark Donfried: So there is, I think, the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy can do a lot in terms of bringing people together that normally wouldn’t come together. I think we can do a lot in terms of education, and, again, by having these exchanges whether it’s academic exchange, whether it’s conferences or publications, to inform citizens around the world. The more informed they are, the more experience that they have, with different faiths or different cultures, the more difficult it would be for somebody to manipulate them and hopefully the better decisions they will make. When they go to the ballot box, to vote for the President, whether they’re a member of the Parliament, a politician, whether there is a member of the family, hopefully in every sense there could be a positive impact by having these interactions. ICD is not having agenda of such sort, we are not trying to teach anything, we are not trying to encourage people to go to one direction than the other; what we want is to, first of all, make sure the bridges are there, make sure that the understanding is there, and the trust. And that’s it. It’s up to the citizens and the governments to decide what to do with that trust. That is the essential thing. Our belief is that the more understanding and trust there is in the world, at a local level or a national level, the more successful actually any policy will be. Whether it’s affecting climate change or developing international relations. So, these are some of the contributions that I think the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy can make.

Interviu realizat de Monica MUŢU

The International Symposium on Religion & Cultural Diplomacy ”The Promotion of World Peace through Inter-Faith Dialogue & the Unity of Faiths”, Rome, Italy; March 31 – April 3, 2014